This is supposed to be one of the more serious sub-forums and everytime a Veg/vegan thread comes up we get the meat eaters pitching in and talking **** about 'eat some meat', 'you're a retarded vegetarian', 'vegans are douches' and the whole debate whether its right or fucking wrong to eat meat.

WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL SIDE OF A VEGETARIAN OR VEGAN DIET YOU MORONS. I do not want to hear about undigested meat, your ethical/religious reasons why you eat or don't eat meat and I want the mods to fucking police at least ONE such thread.

Is that too much to ask?

"I'm reluctant to sound like a total fa66ot as well, but my background in sculpture gave me an edge in understanding how we're expected to move thru space." - The Other Other Serge

Abstract: We combined data from 5 prospective studies to compare the death rates from common diseases of vegetarians with those of nonvegetarians with similar lifestyles. A summary of these results was reported previously; we report here more details of the findings. Data for 76172 men and women were available. Vegetarians were those who did not eat any meat or fish (n = 27808). Death rate ratios at ages 16–89 y were calculated by Poisson regression and all results were adjusted for age, sex, and smoking status. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates of effect for all studies combined. There were 8330 deaths after a mean of 10.6 y of follow-up. Mortality from ischemic heart disease was 24% lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians (death rate ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.94; P < 0.01). The lower mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was greater at younger ages and was restricted to those who had followed their current diet for >5 y. Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans. There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined. "

Hmmm, the first thing I looked at was not backed up. It is interesting that fish and lacto eaters scored better than vegans.

The street argument is retarded. BJJ is so much overkill for the street that its ridiculous. Unless you're the idiot that picks a fight with the high school wrestling team, barring knife or gun play, the opponent shouldn't make it past double leg + ground and pound - Osiris

Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs sparingly or not at all: 3.6 X's

Now, this is what I would like to see, if it is possible just so that there is no chance of misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of data:

For the 3.6 increase risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, how does that translate for two sample populations, one meat-eating and one that is not, of given sizes, say, say, 100,000 men, or 100 men or simply 10 men.

Assuming, with a sample population size of 10, that if the non meat-eating group 2 out of 10 (20%) have a risk of prostate cancer. That means that in the other 10-sized meat-eating group, 7 individuals are at risk of fatal prostate cancer (that is, a whooping 70%).

That's scenario A.

However, contemplate this scenario, called B, with a group size of 100K. In the non meat-eating group, 100 men out of 100K are at risk of fatal prostate cancer (that is, 0.1%). And, if the 3.5x proportions are right, then that would predict that in the meat eating group, 350 men out of 100K would also be at risk of fatal prostate cancer (0.35%).

Now, if reality somehow resembles scenario A, then we can say, ****, we need to stop eating meat.

However, if scenario B is the one that resembles reality, then there is really no reason to give a **** about meat giving increasing your chances of fatal prostate cancer from 0.1% up to 0.35%.

And this is without taking into consideration factors such as genetics, lifestyle, age and exposure to other agents, which, when combined with meat eating, increase the risk probability. Is meat eating the causing agent? Or does it work in collusion with other factors? What happen if other factors are removed from the picture, does meat causate an increase in risk?

Originally Posted by fug

Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher

Same question again: population sizes. If the proportion of non-meat eating mothers with contamination is 1 out of 100, then, there is a PARTIAL reason to worry. That would imply that 35 out of 100 mothers would be contaminated in a 100-sized meat-eating group.

But if the proportion of non-meat eating mothers suffering contamination is 1 out of 10K or 100K, then SOMG, 3.5 contaminations out of 10k or 100k really doesn't mean much.

And I say that is a partial reason to worry because, in addition to population sizes, we need to know the proportion of contamination per litter of milk, and what does this imply to a newborn baby. We have been living in a contaminated world for eons. This doesn't mean we should not care, but we need to have perspective of all risks, and categorize which are the most important ones.

If the % of people being contaminated is minuscule, and if the amounts of contamination per a given amount of milk being produced is little, and if the rate of absorption is not being described, and if there are no consideration to other factors, then this is no different from panicking from getting AIDS from kissing someone you don't know.

You could, in theory, get AIDS from tongue kissing someone you hook up with at a bar. You could get it, in theory, from having unprotected oral sex with someone you just picked up.

Would it be sensible to stop in panic from doing either? Of course not, you have to weigh in 1) the probabilities of infection PER INCIDENT (which are incredibly low to the point of being negligible), and 2) other risk factors such as lifestyle, frequency and pre-existing conditions (such as an already weakened immune system, cuts on the skin, etc) .

You do it one time, meh, no worries. That's all you do and you have pre-existing risk factors, you are tempting faith.

Same with all this OOOPLAH about meat being a risk factor.

Saying that this or that factor A causes a X increase in this type of risk without explicitly explaining the sample size and the proportion of the sample that are at risk without exhibiting factor A and without explaining other co-factors (if any exist), that's not quoting science. That's cheap, sensationalist politikspeak.

The street argument is retarded. BJJ is so much overkill for the street that its ridiculous. Unless you're the idiot that picks a fight with the high school wrestling team, barring knife or gun play, the opponent shouldn't make it past double leg + ground and pound - Osiris

However, contemplate this scenario, called B, with a group size of 100K. In the non meat-eating group, 100 men out of 100K are at risk of fatal prostate cancer (that is, 0.1%). And, if the 3.5x proportions are right, then that would predict that in the meat eating group, 350 men out of 100K would also be at risk of fatal prostate cancer (0.35%).

Now, if reality somehow resembles scenario A, then we can say, ****, we need to stop eating meat.

However, if scenario B is the one that resembles reality, then there is really no reason to give a **** about meat giving increasing your chances of fatal prostate cancer from 0.1% up to 0.35%.

Or take Scenario C. Everybody dies. Increased risk of dying of prostate cancer = decreased risk of dying of something else. Shooting yourself in the head practically eliminates your risk of dying from cancer. It's a fixed-sized pie.

I could advance the hypothesis that eating meat reduces the risk of other causes of death. To reject this hypothesis, we'd need information about how long the two groups lived (and preferably, when their prostate cancer set in).

Or take Scenario C. Everybody dies. Increased risk of dying of prostate cancer = decreased risk of dying of something else. Shooting yourself in the head practically eliminates your risk of dying from cancer. It's a fixed-sized pie.

I could advance the hypothesis that eating meat reduces the risk of other causes of death. To reject this hypothesis, we'd need information about how long the two groups lived (and preferably, when their prostate cancer set in).

Despite the dildo-holding toothy avatar, I just love h to the izzo with a huge crush...

CLICK & WATCH: I got BULLSHIDO ON TV!!!
"Bruce Lee sucks because I slammed my nuts with nunchucks trying to do that stupid **** back in the day. I still managed to have two kids. I forgive you Bruce." - by Vorpal